AMD Radeon Pro 5600M vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M leads with an average benchmark score of 16351, while the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 averages 14532. That places the AMD part at the 59th percentile of all GPUs, versus the 56th percentile for the NVIDIA part.

Q: How do the two compare in OpenCL performance?

A: In the geekbench_opencl test, the Radeon Pro 5600M scores 47783, which is 227.6% higher than the Quadro M2000’s 14588. This is the largest margin of victory for the AMD card.

Q: What about Vulkan performance?

A: The Radeon Pro 5600M scores 46425 in geekbench_vulkan, versus 14475 for the Quadro M2000. That is a 220.7% advantage for the AMD GPU, the second and final head-to-head benchmark win.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are marked as end-of-life in the database. The Radeon Pro 5600M was released on 2020-06-14, while the Quadro M2000 launched earlier on 2016-04-07.

Q: What are the memory sizes and types?

A: The Radeon Pro 5600M uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 394.2 GB/s. The Quadro M2000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 105.8 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The Radeon Pro 5600M reaches 73.22 GPixel/s, nearly double the Quadro M2000’s 37.22 GPixel/s. Texture rate follows the same pattern: 183.0 GTexel/s versus 55.82 GTexel/s.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural generations. The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M is built on RDNA 1.0 using the Navi 12 chip, fabricated on TSMC’s 7 nm process. The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 uses Maxwell 2.0 with the GM206 chip, on a much older 28 nm process. This process gap alone explains a large portion of the performance difference, as the RDNA part packs far more compute resources into a lower power envelope.

The Radeon Pro 5600M has 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The Quadro M2000 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. That is a 3.3x difference in shader count, a 3.3x difference in TMUs, and a 2x difference in ROPs. The AMD GPU also supports half-precision compute with fp16 at 11.71 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the NVIDIA part has no listed fp16 capability.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The Radeon Pro 5600M uses HBM2 with a 2048-bit bus, which gives it a massive bandwidth advantage at 394.2 GB/s. The Quadro M2000 uses GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, reaching only 105.8 GB/s. The AMD card’s memory clock is listed at 770 MHz (1540 Mbps effective), while the NVIDIA card’s memory runs at 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective), but the wider bus on the AMD side dwarfs the raw clock speed advantage of the GDDR5.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. The Radeon Pro 5600M lists Vulkan 1.3, while the Quadro M2000 lists Vulkan 1.4. The AMD card uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, while the NVIDIA card uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Power delivery also differs: the Radeon Pro 5600M is an integrated GPU (IGP) with no power connectors and a 50 W TDP, whereas the Quadro M2000 is a single-slot card with no power connectors but a 75 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Quadro M2000 has physical dimensions of 201 mm (7.9 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height, while the AMD part is listed as portable device dependent.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon Pro 5600M wins every benchmark that the database records for both cards. In the two head-to-head tests, it dominates both OpenCL and Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 16351 puts it within 0.1% of the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT (16361), within 0.3% of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell (16408), and within 0.4% of the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 (16415). It even trails the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 (16504) by only 0.9%. This places it in a performance tier far above the Quadro M2000.

The Quadro M2000’s average score of 14532 sits near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M (14404, 0.9% ahead), the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (14385, 1% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN (14373, 1.1% ahead). It trails the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT (14692) by 1.1%. This is a much lower performance class, closer to entry-level discrete GPUs than to the high-end mobile Radeon.

For use cases: the Radeon Pro 5600M is suited to workloads that demand high compute throughput, large memory capacity, and wide memory bandwidth, such as rendering, simulation, and GPU compute. The Quadro M2000, with its smaller memory and narrower bus, is more appropriate for lighter professional tasks like basic CAD viewport work or multi-display setups, where its 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs and single-slot form factor provide practical advantages. The data does not show any benchmark where the Quadro M2000 wins, so the advantage is entirely on the AMD side.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 5600M | NVIDIA Quadro M2000 |

|---|---|---|

| Process node | 7 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | Not listed | 2,940 million |

| Die size | Not listed | 228 mm² |

| Transistor density | Not listed | 12.9M / mm² |

| Base clock | 822 MHz | 796 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1144 MHz | 1163 MHz |

| Memory clock | 770 MHz (1540 Mbps effective) | 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory type | HBM2 | GDDR5 |

| Memory bus width | 2048 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 394.2 GB/s | 105.8 GB/s |

| Shading units | 2560 | 768 |

| TMUs | 160 | 48 |

| ROPs | 64 | 32 |

| Pixel rate | 73.22 GPixel/s | 37.22 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 183.0 GTexel/s | 55.82 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 5.857 TFLOPS | 1.786 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 11.71 TFLOPS (2:1) | Not listed |

| TDP | 50 W | 75 W |

| Slot width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Power connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 250 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| Vulkan version | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Release date | 2020-06-14 | 2016-04-07 |

| Predecessor | Not listed | Quadro Kepler |

| Successor | Not listed | Quadro Pascal |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct comparisons between these GPUs, and the Radeon Pro 5600M wins both by overwhelming margins.

In geekbench_opencl, the Radeon Pro 5600M scores 47783 against the Quadro M2000’s 14588. That is a delta of 227.6%, meaning the AMD card delivers more than three times the OpenCL compute performance. This is the largest win in either direction across the recorded tests. The gap reflects the fundamental architectural differences: 2560 shading units versus 768, and 394.2 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 105.8 GB/s.

In geekbench_vulkan, the Radeon Pro 5600M scores 46425 versus 14475 for the Quadro M2000, a 220.7% advantage. While slightly smaller than the OpenCL margin, this still represents a dominant lead. The AMD GPU’s Vulkan 1.3 support and higher raw throughput allow it to outperform the older Maxwell design by a factor of roughly 3.2x.

No benchmark in the database shows the Quadro M2000 winning. The only two head-to-head results are both AMD victories, with winsA equal to 2 and winsB equal to 0. The average benchmark scores reinforce this: 16351 for the Radeon Pro 5600M versus 14532 for the Quadro M2000, a gap of roughly 12.5% in the aggregate.

The Radeon Pro 5600M’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT, with a delta of -0.1%, meaning the two are statistically tied in average performance. The Quadro M2000’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M, with a delta of 0.9%. This places the two cards in completely different performance strata despite only a 3 percentile point difference in their overall standing.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M is the faster GPU in every recorded benchmark, with a 227.6% lead in OpenCL and a 220.7% lead in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 16351 places it in the company of much newer and more powerful GPUs like the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell and the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT, while the Quadro M2000’s 14532 average sits near older mid-range parts like the GTX 965M and GTX TITAN.

For anyone choosing between these two for compute-heavy professional work, the Radeon Pro 5600M is the clear pick. It offers 8 GB of HBM2 memory versus 4 GB of GDDR5, a 2048-bit bus versus 128-bit, and 5.857 TFLOPS of FP32 versus 1.786 TFLOPS. All of this comes at a lower 50 W TDP compared to the Quadro M2000’s 75 W, and it is built on a 7 nm process versus 28 nm.

The Quadro M2000 does retain some practical advantages. Its single-slot design and 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs make it easier to integrate into workstation towers, and its 250 W suggested PSU requirement is modest. It also lists Vulkan 1.4 support, one version newer than the AMD card’s 1.3. But these are physical and API-level considerations, not performance ones. In terms of raw capability, the database shows no scenario where the Quadro M2000 beats the Radeon Pro 5600M.

The verdict: choose the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M if you need maximum compute throughput, large memory capacity, and high bandwidth. Choose the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 only if you require a discrete single-slot card with multiple DisplayPort outputs and are working within a 250 W PSU budget, and if your workloads do not demand the performance levels the Radeon card provides. For all benchmark-driven decisions, the AMD part wins outright.